[info]ex_enamour175 in [info]07refugees

Livejournal recently suspended my accounts without reason and without explanation. I opened a support ticket about it but my questions are going ignored and they aren't responding to me. I've kept asking them about it in my ticket but I gave up. I can't understand it, I did nothing to deserve a suspension. I didn't think that debating with people and arguing were a bannable offense but I could be wrong. I don't know if someone kept flagging me or what. I wasn't the only person suspended that day either Maybe someone here can shed some light on the situation?
Tags:

Posted on Dec. 17th, 2007 at 05:18 pm | | Leave a comment | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend

Comments

[info]prettyparadox

Re: woe, slippery slope

I didn't say I was holding my breath, nor did I equate the LJ with the ACLU. I merely pointed out that LJ, while they had good intentions to cut down on child pornography, went about it the wrong way. But the other side to it is that LJ has a right, as a private company, to have whatever shitty TOS policy they want. And while people whose journals were wrongfully deleted were understandably upset, the reaction as a whole was ridiculous and counterproductive. Both sides handled things badly. Yes LJ backed themselves into this corner, but maybe there was a time when service providers didn't sell out their users, and it seems like we're past that.
Posted on Dec. 18th, 2007 02:24 am (UTC) | | Parent | Thread | Reply

[info]wolfsilveroak

Re: woe, slippery slope

My response was based off of your response as follows- Livejournal should have their legal team look up Reno v. ACLU, Miller v. California. The law recognizes the difference between virtual and actual child pornography; namely, in actual child pornography, children are physically abused. That does not apply at all to Lolita, a book, an idea and protected speech. Plus under the "SLAPS test," Lolita certainly qualifies as Serious Literary value in this day and age.


I never said you equated LJ with the ACLU. I said that they don't care what you think about the book, only that THEY see it as a sex interest key word and have censored it accodingly. Their good intentions were the result of Warriors for Innocence declaring jihad essentially on LJ, whereupon LJ reacted in the only way they knew how too- by overreacting.

Yes, they have a right to whatever ToS they want. But we have the right to say, we want our money back that we paid in good faith, especially when that same shitty ToS is being disregarded BY that same provider.

LJ will NEVER be able to work their way out of this fiasco. It's too late for that.
Posted on Dec. 18th, 2007 02:47 am (UTC) | | Parent | Thread | Reply

[info]prettyparadox

Re: woe, slippery slope

"Jihad" is a bit, make that far too extremne to apply to LJ and whatever drama it has. Oh great, Godwin's Law 2.0. But anyways, I digress. However horrible LJ's TOS is, it's not unlike any other service provider or company, which upon reading the fine print, says they can collect whatever information they want and refuse service should they so choose to, for whatever undisclosed reason. It sucks. But it's not a battle that fandom or users can win, so I don't see how antagonizing LJ helped. By antagonizing, I don't mean taking a help ticket and asking why such and such a course of action was taken, but making those stupid icons, "fuck not with fandom, for fandom fucks back (without lube)"?? The self-righteous wank gets tiresome. But I'll stop here, because the OP had nothing to do with that. With management comes liability, so from LJ's perspective, they're just trying to cover their asses. Eventually, ad hopefully in this case, they'll make reprimands, even if they're not worth much anymore.
Posted on Dec. 18th, 2007 03:39 am (UTC) | | Parent | Thread | Reply

[info]wolfsilveroak

Re: woe, slippery slope

Jihad is exactly what it's been called on LJ. Heh.

Personally, I think we can make ourselves better heard by talking with our money. By not renewing accounts and by leaving.

And it's not just about fandom anymore. It's about anyone and everyone being affected by the recent changes they've brought about. It's gone way beyond fandom, and did so months ago.
Posted on Dec. 18th, 2007 03:47 am (UTC) | | Parent | Thread | Reply

[info]prettyparadox

Re: woe, slippery slope

Boycotting on LJ is each person's prerogative, but they are not going bankrupt anytime soon. I haven't seen many people move really, and I do like IJ, but after all the bitching and whining, the majority it seems have stayed at LJ.
Posted on Dec. 18th, 2007 04:01 am (UTC) | | Parent | Thread | Reply

[info]wolfsilveroak

Re: woe, slippery slope

That's because many went to GJ before they went crazy.

Quite a few people on my friends list at LJ , have created IJs or GJs, but haven't fully left.

I don't think many will leave until something actually affects them directly. But there are quite a few who are not renewing their accounts, which takes at least a little money out of LJ/SUP's pockets.
Posted on Dec. 18th, 2007 04:09 am (UTC) | | Parent | Reply